SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Cal) 140

A.N.RAY
AJAY HARKERNI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


A. N. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THE Court : In this application the writ petitioner prays for stopping of any further investigation pursuant to an F. I. R. dated 10. 8. 88, a copy whereof is at page 25 of the annexures to the writ petition. According to the said Report four film of pornographic nature were seized from the video shop of the writ petitioner. It is stated in the said F. I. R. that the same amounts to an offence under section 7 (1) (a) (i) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

( 2 ) THE said section is reproduced below :"7. Penalties for contravention of this part. . . . . . . . (1) if any person- (a) exhibits or permits to be exhibited in any place-- (i) any film other than a film which has been certified by the Board as suitable for unrestricted public exhibition or for public exhibition restricted to adults (or to members of any profession or any class of persons) and which, when exhibited, displays the prescribed mark of the Board and has been altered or tampered with in any way since such mark was affixed thereto. "

( 3 ) A bare perusal of the above sub-section shows that the essential ingredient of the offence is either an exhibition of an uncertified film or a permission of the








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top